637 replies to this topic

[RalphVargr]

Poor Marc Miller. He's trying to forget that "Firefly" has already been made...

[Kjudoon]

Louis Brofist, on 01 November 2014 - 09:35 AM, said:

I'd eliminate LRMs all together. I know its not an option, but I'd do it. It promotes stale ass boring no skill gameplay.

Nerf LRMs to hell for all I care. I know there are many who think alike.

Lemmings often have many who think like them, right up to point of impact.

[RalphVargr]

YueFei, on 01 November 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

They need to buff the hell out of LRMs for direct-fire mode.

The way they work for indirect-fire is fine. They're actually a very inefficient way to kill something in terms of ammo, heat, spreading damage all over the place to finally bring a guy down.

They need to be made stronger for *direct-fire* mode. Risk vs Reward. If you expose yourself on a direct line-of-sight to the enemy, and maintain lock throughout the flight, you should be rewarded for that. Missile spread needs to tighten DANGEROUSLY with direct line of sight (and especially with Artemis), and the missiles should home in on the enemy mech component where your crosshairs are aimed, so you can put the damage where you want it to go.

I like your ideas. SRM's that actually *work*.

[Lightfoot]

YueFei, on 01 November 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

They need to buff the hell out of LRMs for direct-fire mode.

The way they work for indirect-fire is fine. They're actually a very inefficient way to kill something in terms of ammo, heat, spreading damage all over the place to finally bring a guy down.

They need to be made stronger for *direct-fire* mode. Risk vs Reward. If you expose yourself on a direct line-of-sight to the enemy, and maintain lock throughout the flight, you should be rewarded for that. Missile spread needs to tighten DANGEROUSLY with direct line of sight (and especially with Artemis), and the missiles should home in on the enemy mech component where your crosshairs are aimed, so you can put the damage where you want it to go.

QFT

It's quite hard to use IS LRMs in direct-fire mode because they have the 180 meter minimum arming range and on most maps this means you are averaging 400-600 meters at best when you start. Alpine, no, but all the other maps are medium to close range mazes with lots of cover. (Swamp better not be Canyon Network or Mining re-textured ). They need some buff for LoS, your target can still turn away and easily take the hit on a good arm so it's not auto-hit. I would like to not boat LRMs and have the one or two launchers be worth their weight in a brawl, up to 180 meters anyway.

[MischiefSC]

RalphVargr, on 01 November 2014 - 09:17 AM, said:

If you looked at my post a little more closely, I stipulated that direct-fire weapons users were there that those who complained about LRM's most. So eliminate everything that had a range of over 500 meters, and make it the slug-fest may seem to desire. You would seem to be among those who don't like LRM's, because they are an indirect fire weapon.

We can't brawl, and you get attrited by artillery (by whatever name).

Why do you think artillery evolved?

So, by all means, lets remove everything from the game (by whatever method you propose including total removal) that could be considered indirect fire (air/arty/LRM's). Then, only the best MWO twitch players could have a prayer.

Then, there will be a Darwinian sort, until a fraction of the playerbase remains. MLB/NFL MWO!

Unfortunately, for PGI, the day that occurs will be the day to shut down the servers. I will be playing tabletop (or tablet) OGRE, for really brutal infighting.

I'm still all for indirect fire a secondary fire mode. Just not the primary one, for the same reason it's not the primary fire mode in the tabletop game.

So, again, you're creating pretty absurd 'either/or' situations that don't actually exist. For one thing indirect fire LRMs are in no way what so ever what separates MW:O from other games. Grenades are indirect, most FPS games have indirect/out of LOS weapons. It's not unique. You will find that most games do NOT have auto-track/auto-hit weapons, because it's a terrible mechanic.

"nothing over 500m"... who said that? Nobody did. ERLLs, ERPPCs, gauss, AC5s/UAC5s, LRMs, there are some common and heavy hitters well beyond 500m. The idea that you have to actually see who you are shooting at or have a designated spotter who is literally equipped to spot for you (TAG/NARC) doesn't mean LRMs don't work or are not a good choice for the tonnage (they do a lot of damage for the tonnage at long range) is, again, absurd. Bringing them into balance with every other weapon in game isn't some crippling 'MWO is going to fail' moment, it's fixing a long-standing game problem, one that facilitated a slew of nerf/buff/nerf/buff cycles and the otherwise terrible ECM design we have.

The whole 'may as well shut down the server' bit too, that's not just false but flat out silly. If you can only handle MW:O if you can boat indirect fire then yeah. It may not be the game for you. If not having boated primary indirect fire weapons totally ruins your game experience then Battletech is absolutely not the right game for you. Indirect fire weapons were rare and as a given rule flat out inferior 99% of the time. Also clumsy to try and use. LRMs never, ever worked anything at all like they do in MW:O. It was always an 'optional rule', it got a negative 'to hit' and the spotter couldn't fire or do anything else for that action.

So, again. Buff direct fire, nerf indirect, better game, more 'battletech', can then look at fixing ECM.

[MischiefSC]

YueFei, on 01 November 2014 - 09:41 AM, said:

They need to buff the hell out of LRMs for direct-fire mode.

The way they work for indirect-fire is fine. They're actually a very inefficient way to kill something in terms of ammo, heat, spreading damage all over the place to finally bring a guy down.

They need to be made stronger for *direct-fire* mode. Risk vs Reward. If you expose yourself on a direct line-of-sight to the enemy, and maintain lock throughout the flight, you should be rewarded for that. Missile spread needs to tighten DANGEROUSLY with direct line of sight (and especially with Artemis), and the missiles should home in on the enemy mech component where your crosshairs are aimed, so you can put the damage where you want it to go.

Same thing I said earlier. Flatter trajectory, significant (like 2 or 3x) speed boost for direct fire, tighter cluster with Artemis. For the range/tonnage/shots per ton they'd make a rock-solid choice that way and one you wouldn't have to boat; they'd sync well with ERLLs for example, even AC5s/UAC5s. You could even pack 1 or 2 LRM5s without Artemis for the 'brush-back' effect when stacked with lasers for Clan mechs.

I'd say IS mechs get a 2x speed boost for direct fire, Clans a 1.5 or 1.2 speed boost, as they don't have a minimum range. When fired without locks all LRMs shoot like SRMs but with the longer max range; this would let you snap-fire LRMs at closer ranges.

They're 1/2 the damage/missile as SRMs so you've still got a big reason to pack SRMs (high point blank damage/shot, no minimum) and LRMs are a rock solid viable weapon that doesn't skew game balance.

I use LRMs on plenty of mechs. I still recognize the issues with them and appreciate that making them better would make the game experience better.

[Rando Slim]

Wow you mean a dev finally played their own game and realized what about two third of the community realizes? Hell just froze over........next your gonna tell me the Cubs will win the world series next year. I cant believe it. I mean I wouldn't complain if they just removed lrms from the game, but still I guess that wouldn't be fair for the people that like them.

[pyrocomp]

There many ways to change LRMs (buff or nerf, who knows, I don't):
1. no virtual C3 computer on board of every mech by default (e.g. buy it, spend slots/weight) for only direct LoS for them to 'lock', but locks are almost instant
2. narc/tag overpowers ECM
3. turn LRMs into passive kind of ballistic (with different trajectory curves, like in MW3, where you could send them directly or upwards/around conner) without 'following' target, but with leading and higher missile speed
4. add spread and malfunction: higher distance - less percentage of missiles get to target and hit. At maximum range no more than half reaches the target.
5. damage altered
6. ... many other things

In the end, combine variants on your liking and blance to the same picture we have now (or 10% less) for it really punishes for standing still or letting a light spotter sneak behind your lines (amazing how this works on canyons, did it and it was done to me), and at present a Light can provocate the rain of LRMs on him without much damage providing distraction for the team to close and hit.

[Vaderman]

Mercules, on 31 October 2014 - 11:45 PM, said:

Except they were not "Horribad" in TT. I would take some LRM Carriers as vehicles in our group. Others had their mechs. My buddy had infantry. We would often have the infantry infiltrate into a solid forward position and act as spotters for LRMs. Mech sensors wouldn't notice the infantry and we were out of LoS and out of range of the other sensor systems so they basically had to head in the direction the LRMs were coming from and slog through the rain of fire for multiple turns only to crest a ridge and find a couple Von Luckner Heavy Tanks waiting for them with their AC/20, SRMs, and Machine Guns to get crits from open sections and tear weakened sections off mechs.

It's +1 to hit. +2 if the unit spotting shoots.



I think you mean Hawken or Titanfall both of which are twich mecha games.

You forgot that while spotting, the spotting unit could take no other actions, including firing weapons.

[Madcap72]

Vaderman, on 01 November 2014 - 12:05 PM, said:

You forgot that while spotting, the spotting unit could take no other actions, including firing weapons.

So? A turn is representative of a few seconds of an action in the TT. It's a turn based game focusing on lance teamwork and tactics.


MW is a real time simulation. In real time people can walk AND chew gum.

[Vaderman]

Madcap72, on 01 November 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

So? A turn is representative of a few seconds of an action in the TT. It's a turn based game focusing on lance teamwork and tactics.


MW is a real time simulation. In real time people can walk AND chew gum.

Yeah I know what it is, played it enough.

Point is, you can walk and chew gum at the same time in turn based actions too. Spotting is an active task, not a passive one like it is in this game.

[MischiefSC]

Madcap72, on 01 November 2014 - 12:15 PM, said:

So? A turn is representative of a few seconds of an action in the TT. It's a turn based game focusing on lance teamwork and tactics.


MW is a real time simulation. In real time people can walk AND chew gum.

A turn was 10 seconds. Again, the point was to keep indirect fire from replacing direct fire.

Why? Because even in tabletop they realized weapons focused on indirect fire are **** for game experience for everyone. You've got campers hiding in the back raking in damage and kills while being utterly dependent on people standing in harms way to spot for them. It helped prevent a steep risk/reward skew and turning LRMs into field arty and, again, making a **** game.

Should still be indirect fire, just much like in TT it needs to be secondary/inferior to direct fire LRMs. This idea that LRMs need 'mad positioning SKILLZ'.... so does every other weapon. In fact every other weapon requires you to get a clear LOS to the target, not just one without tall stuff in the way and taking a bad shot with gauss/PPC/lasers leaves you exposed to enemy fire while a bad shot with LRMs just wastes some ammo.

Again, I use LRMs. I want them in the game I want them viable. They just need to be so in a way that makes the game better and lets us look at fixing ECM.

Buff direct fire, nerf indirect.

[LordKnightFandragon]

Scrotacus 42, on 01 November 2014 - 11:13 AM, said:

Wow you mean a dev finally played their own game and realized what about two third of the community realizes? Hell just froze over........next your gonna tell me the Cubs will win the world series next year. I cant believe it. I mean I wouldn't complain if they just removed lrms from the game, but still I guess that wouldn't be fair for the people that like them.

Thats funny ****...

[RalphVargr]

MischiefSC, on 01 November 2014 - 10:54 AM, said:

The whole 'may as well shut down the server' bit too, that's not just false but flat out silly. If you can only handle MW:O if you can boat indirect fire then yeah. It may not be the game for you. If not having boated primary indirect fire weapons totally ruins your game experience then Battletech is absolutely not the right game for you.

Thanks. I'm already actively looking for a game this arthritic old dog can deal with. Many of the tablet games fit the ticket, and are cheaper than maintaining $1,5000+ PC's.

Please do not forget that the core group of boardgamers that played BT in the 80's is now getting ready to push 60+.

D&D in the nursing home?

[Kjudoon]

RalphVargr, on 01 November 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

[/size]

Thanks. I'm already actively looking for a game this arthritic old dog can deal with. Many of the tablet games fit the ticket, and are cheaper than maintaining $1,5000+ PC's.

Please do not forget that the core group of boardgamers that played BT in the 80's is now getting ready to push 60+.

D&D in the nursing home?

makes the dementia that much more enjoyable. Save versus cream of wheat punk!

[damonwolf]

Kilo 40, on 27 October 2014 - 11:01 PM, said:

From Russ's twitter...

"So anyone else getting pounded by LRM's?"

"I like them having their place but I wish there was maybe 10% less LRM's per match"

So let me get this straight Russ...you guys put in all the @#$%ing Role Warfare bonuses for TAGing and NARCing...and YOU'RE B!TCHING ABOUT MORE LRMS?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

Now I completely understand why the game is so @#$%ed up...


P.S. psssst, hey Russ, maybe tone down pushing LRM use with the bonuses for TAG and NARC might help with that 10% less LRMs per match...

Edited by damonwolf, 01 November 2014 - 04:44 PM.

[DeathWaffle]

process, on 27 October 2014 - 11:03 PM, said:

LRM 4.5
LRM 9
LRM 13.5
LRM 18

fixed ez

I logged in just to like this!

[MischiefSC]

RalphVargr, on 01 November 2014 - 03:53 PM, said:

[/size]

Thanks. I'm already actively looking for a game this arthritic old dog can deal with. Many of the tablet games fit the ticket, and are cheaper than maintaining $1,5000+ PC's.

Please do not forget that the core group of boardgamers that played BT in the 80's is now getting ready to push 60+.

D&D in the nursing home?

Most of us are 40 and up. That ain't new. Saying that we need to have easy to use auto-locking weapons for indirect fire because not all of us are keen on the twitch reflexes isn't a reasonable game balance argument to make. You've got to recognize that.

The core argument isn't 'this isn't the game for you'. The core argument is that any and all game balance needs done on the same curve and trying to say 'well, this particular bit is out of balance and cludgy and requires a bunch of other work-arounds because X' isn't a good argument.

LRMs are drama because of indirect fire and the imbalance it creates in its very nature. This led to ECM being borked and LRMs being an inherently dissatisfying weapon for both the people who use it and the people it's used on; nature of feast/famine.

You can still use them; you just need LOS. Same as every other weapon. They're still going to lock, track and land without twitch reflexes. You just can't have 6 or even 11 people shooting at one guy who can't shoot back in some matches and 6 or even 11 people who have pretty much useless weapons, shafting their whole team on other matches. LRMs will be just as useful as everything else in every single match; no more, no less - just require a different skill set and different functionality. Like SRMs or ballistics vs lasers.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Nor is it 'shafting LRM users'. It's ensuring that LRMs are going to be useful every match, just like every other weapon. It's the feast/famine that indirect provides that's the problem, not the lock functionality.

[Col Jaime Wolf]

MischiefSC, on 01 November 2014 - 06:39 PM, said:

Most of us are 40 and up. That ain't new. Saying that we need to have easy to use auto-locking weapons for indirect fire because not all of us are keen on the twitch reflexes isn't a reasonable game balance argument to make. You've got to recognize that.

The core argument isn't 'this isn't the game for you'. The core argument is that any and all game balance needs done on the same curve and trying to say 'well, this particular bit is out of balance and cludgy and requires a bunch of other work-arounds because X' isn't a good argument.

LRMs are drama because of indirect fire and the imbalance it creates in its very nature. This led to ECM being borked and LRMs being an inherently dissatisfying weapon for both the people who use it and the people it's used on; nature of feast/famine.

You can still use them; you just need LOS. Same as every other weapon. They're still going to lock, track and land without twitch reflexes. You just can't have 6 or even 11 people shooting at one guy who can't shoot back in some matches and 6 or even 11 people who have pretty much useless weapons, shafting their whole team on other matches. LRMs will be just as useful as everything else in every single match; no more, no less - just require a different skill set and different functionality. Like SRMs or ballistics vs lasers.

That's a good thing, not a bad thing. Nor is it 'shafting LRM users'. It's ensuring that LRMs are going to be useful every match, just like every other weapon. It's the feast/famine that indirect provides that's the problem, not the lock functionality.

again just stop. we lrms are the only indirect fire weapon in the game. dont like it? l2p.

lrms need to be fixed not religated to some direct fire mode where they will just be a missle version of the LBX.

your point is bad and you should feel bad.

[Kiryuin Ragyo]